Diserner
Well-known member
This is a bad argument, linking something back to a pagan belief or practice and claiming it proves it is somehow bad.
It is called a genetic fallacy because one is making an assertion that mere association or correlation equals causation.
Along with something being "gnostic," which is a similar specific kind of pagan genre of cult, these terms are all to often used as a generic catch all to make a view "look bad."
You can link almost anything back to some concept or idea in paganism and gnosticism if you work hard enough, and these are extremely broad concepts.
I personally reject Calvinism and divine determinism, but not because Augustine was somehow gnostic. I reject the idea based on what the Bible personally speaks to me through the Spirit.
The devil often uses a counterfeit that looks or feels similar to the real thing—even in the book of Revelation we see all kinds of counterfeits. The antichrist dies and rises again to mimic Christ; there is a demonic trinity mimicking the real thing; there is a demand for worship from all people.
Does that mean all worship concepts are Satanic? All resurrection concepts? All Trinity concepts?
These are the very kinds of arguments atheists use to say all of Bible is itself of pagan origin and just another version of pagan myths and legends!
Indeed 3 is a common number and we can see a lot of "trinity" type things in paganism.
Is every belief a pagan had necessarily bad and icky because we can say it's "pagan"?
They believed in the spiritual worlds and good and evil spirits.... does that mean belief in angels and demons are necessarily pagan?
They prayed to higher deities, does that mean all prayer is necessarily pagan?
These things are "non sequitur," they do not logically follow.
A certain Dr. Leighton Flowers has liked to call this the "boogeyman fallacy." You take a certain label with negative connotations, then use it as a weapon to just insult a belief, like kids on a playground. "You're a fatty! You're a dork! You're a pagan! You're a gnostic!" This is all the essential logic behind it is.
Gnosticism is a difficult thing to study out, and basically encapsulates a lot of strange cultish beliefs of secret higher knowledge that often had elaborate beliefs about the physical versus material, strange origins of humanity from immature interplay between different gods and their demands of humans.
This does not mean everything that is a "mystery" is somehow gnostic. The Gospel is called a mystery. Christ in us is called a mystery. The revelations of God are called knowledge and God is said to have secrets he shares with his people.
This does not somehow make the Gospel and the Bible gnostic.
I would urge those throwing these things out so thoughtlessly, to take a moment and deeply consider the real logic behind the claims.
Ask yourself "How fuzzy is the logic I am using in reality? Am I just in the end resorting to playground tactics and calling names?"
Most people using these terms have not even researched deeply into them and studied out what they really represent.
So no.
Jesus dying for sins and sprinkling with blood does not necessarily correlate to pagan blood magic.
God declaring curses and blessings based on certain behaviors is not evidence of pagan superstition.
Paul declaring that all fall short of the glory of God and are sinful is not an imported pagan idea of resident evil.
Saying people have spirits along with their bodies is not ancient gnostic mysticism.
And even declaring that God sovereignly decrees all things, although I disagree with it, does not necessarily equate to gnostic versions of fatalism.
I urge all to up their logic games and try be more consistent, thought-out, and well studied in their claims.
Peace to all in Christ.
It is called a genetic fallacy because one is making an assertion that mere association or correlation equals causation.
Along with something being "gnostic," which is a similar specific kind of pagan genre of cult, these terms are all to often used as a generic catch all to make a view "look bad."
You can link almost anything back to some concept or idea in paganism and gnosticism if you work hard enough, and these are extremely broad concepts.
I personally reject Calvinism and divine determinism, but not because Augustine was somehow gnostic. I reject the idea based on what the Bible personally speaks to me through the Spirit.
The devil often uses a counterfeit that looks or feels similar to the real thing—even in the book of Revelation we see all kinds of counterfeits. The antichrist dies and rises again to mimic Christ; there is a demonic trinity mimicking the real thing; there is a demand for worship from all people.
Does that mean all worship concepts are Satanic? All resurrection concepts? All Trinity concepts?
These are the very kinds of arguments atheists use to say all of Bible is itself of pagan origin and just another version of pagan myths and legends!
Indeed 3 is a common number and we can see a lot of "trinity" type things in paganism.
Is every belief a pagan had necessarily bad and icky because we can say it's "pagan"?
They believed in the spiritual worlds and good and evil spirits.... does that mean belief in angels and demons are necessarily pagan?
They prayed to higher deities, does that mean all prayer is necessarily pagan?
These things are "non sequitur," they do not logically follow.
A certain Dr. Leighton Flowers has liked to call this the "boogeyman fallacy." You take a certain label with negative connotations, then use it as a weapon to just insult a belief, like kids on a playground. "You're a fatty! You're a dork! You're a pagan! You're a gnostic!" This is all the essential logic behind it is.
Gnosticism is a difficult thing to study out, and basically encapsulates a lot of strange cultish beliefs of secret higher knowledge that often had elaborate beliefs about the physical versus material, strange origins of humanity from immature interplay between different gods and their demands of humans.
This does not mean everything that is a "mystery" is somehow gnostic. The Gospel is called a mystery. Christ in us is called a mystery. The revelations of God are called knowledge and God is said to have secrets he shares with his people.
This does not somehow make the Gospel and the Bible gnostic.
I would urge those throwing these things out so thoughtlessly, to take a moment and deeply consider the real logic behind the claims.
Ask yourself "How fuzzy is the logic I am using in reality? Am I just in the end resorting to playground tactics and calling names?"
Most people using these terms have not even researched deeply into them and studied out what they really represent.
So no.
Jesus dying for sins and sprinkling with blood does not necessarily correlate to pagan blood magic.
God declaring curses and blessings based on certain behaviors is not evidence of pagan superstition.
Paul declaring that all fall short of the glory of God and are sinful is not an imported pagan idea of resident evil.
Saying people have spirits along with their bodies is not ancient gnostic mysticism.
And even declaring that God sovereignly decrees all things, although I disagree with it, does not necessarily equate to gnostic versions of fatalism.
I urge all to up their logic games and try be more consistent, thought-out, and well studied in their claims.
Peace to all in Christ.
